What's your feeling about the two-party system in the US or other countries with a two party system?

brianlux

Pick one and let's see where this goes.  And maybe tell us why you made your choice.

brianlux

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

Should I add another choice called "No Comment"? 

brianlux

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

Ah!  We have some votes.  But so far, no comments.

I went with "I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits".  I don't think that has a chance of being put into practice, but why not put it out there?  I think it would be great.  Don't give us your tired party line rhetoric, tell us what you are going to do to help lead and make your world or country or state or province or city or town a better place.  I'm all for this idea.

unsung

Is there a crush your opponent party?

I'm for candidates that want to reduce the role of govt in people's lives.

cincybearcat

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.

brianlux

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

unsung said:

Is there a crush your opponent party?

I'm for candidates that want to reduce the role of govt in people's lives.

"Is there a crush your opponent party?"

Isn't that what every party wants- to crush their opponent? 

"I'm for candidates that want to reduce the role of govt in people's lives." 

But wait, how can you have both candidates and no government?

flywallyfly

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.

brianlux

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

flywallyfly said:

I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.

I thought about the multi-party choice  a lot as well.  Definitely has some merits.  "Benefits all"-- I like the sound of that. Thanks for chiming in here.

Thoughts_Arrive

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

Same old crap here too. Both the Liberals and Labor often let Aussies down.
We have minor parties but they will never get elected.

Pap

I'm totally against any party system (please expain this alternative)

If we're discussing parliamentary democracy, then pluralism and polyvocality are prerequisites (3rd option). However, because Greece has a pretty much two-party system (totally corrupted as all of them are), I'd like to see how a self-governed society based on voluntary institutions (i.e., anarchism) would work out.

brianlux

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

Thoughts_Arrive said:

Same old crap here too. Both the Liberals and Labor often let Aussies down.
We have minor parties but they will never get elected.

We get a few from other parties or independents that win, but a very small minority. 

brianlux

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

Pap said:

If we're discussing parliamentary democracy, then pluralism and polyvocality are prerequisites (3rd option). However, because Greece has a pretty much two-party system (totally corrupted as all of them are), I'd like to see how a self-governed society based on voluntary institutions (i.e., anarchism) would work out.

Interesting thought, Pap!  Has there been a society bold enough to attempt something like that?  None that I can think of.

lastexitlondon

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

I'm horrible at politics  and I never understand  what each side is meant to represent.  The lines are too blurred. I think if each candidate  ran independently  then we chose I would have more of a clue . It seems all smoke and mirrors  to me. 

Meltdown99

Other (please explain)

I am in favour of more direct democracy.  

Meltdown99

Other (please explain)

cincybearcat said:

I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.

We have 4 parties federally ... only 2 parties run the country into the ground ... 

Meltdown99

Other (please explain)

flywallyfly said:

I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.

The only way I am in favour of minority governments is if there was a fixed election date.  In Canada, we get minority governments from time to time,  but often leads to unnecessary early elections because a no confidence vote has taken place.  Remove the no confidence vote and force them to co-operate for the entire 4 term, then that would be fine...

Meltdown99

Other (please explain)

lastexitlondon said:

I'm horrible at politics  and I never understand  what each side is meant to represent.  The lines are too blurred. I think if each candidate  ran independently  then we chose I would have more of a clue . It seems all smoke and mirrors  to me. 

Even if they ran independently they would form voting blocks.  That's what municipal is like.  

cincybearcat

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

Meltdown99 said:

cincybearcat said:

I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.

We have 4 parties federally ... only 2 parties run the country into the ground ... 

Can you name an elected official from a party other than the Dems and Repub at the federal level?

PJWGIII

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

Fuck Republicans. Fuck Democrats. Love America. Be Independent.

PJ_Soul

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

brianlux said:

Ah!  We have some votes.  But so far, no comments.

I went with "I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits".  I don't think that has a chance of being put into practice, but why not put it out there?  I think it would be great.  Don't give us your tired party line rhetoric, tell us what you are going to do to help lead and make your world or country or state or province or city or town a better place.  I'm all for this idea.

It simply wouldn't work, so I'm simply not sure I see any point in putting it out there. I think that politics kind of require actual groups of people who all operate with a shared understanding of what their platform is so that they can all work together towards common goals. Otherwise it would likely just be chaos for each candidate and their cohorts. It would also be chaos within parliament or whatever government system you had in mind. How would a zero party system operate specifically?? Just a bunch of individuals all voicing their individual opinions and ideas? I would imagine that debates and votes about any bill would last forever if they did that. Government would essentially grind to a halt.

jeffbr

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

brianlux said:

flywallyfly said:

I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.

I thought about the multi-party choice  a lot as well.  Definitely has some merits.  "Benefits all"-- I like the sound of that. Thanks for chiming in here.

I'm also in favor of a system in which multiple parties represent voters. A parliamentary system with proportional representation. It accomplishes a few things - 1) the forming of coalitions - since no party will likely have a straight majority it requires parties to work together and form coalitions; 2) keeps parties in check - if a party gets too out of touch they won't be able to form coalitions and will fade to a footnote; 3) allows people to feel like their vote actually matters - people can better shape government by voting their conscience or a platform they can back rather than holding their nose and picking the least detestable of their two choices. Right now we are often forced to choose between a turd burger and a shit sandwich. I'd rather pick something tastier; 4) more candidates and more choices equates to a better chance that we could have candidates who are not beholden to particular special interests or party machinations. The smaller parties with the innovative ideas can come in, take votes, and have an influence via coalition, on the shaping of a larger party's agenda.

Meltdown99

Other (please explain)

cincybearcat said:

Meltdown99 said:

cincybearcat said:

I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.

We have 4 parties federally ... only 2 parties run the country into the ground ... 

Can you name an elected official from a party other than the Dems and Repub at the federal level?

In the US ... probably not.  I'm sure there are independents somewhere.  In Canada if the government has a majority they do whatever they want.  In our system we elect our dictators. 

PJ_Soul

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

flywallyfly said:

I like the idea of several parties so that no single party has a majority. This way they are forced to work with the others to get anything passed which means (in theory) that nothing extremely radical will be passed unless it benefits all.

How would no single party out of several not have a majority while people are still voting? If you want to evenly balance it between all parties then wouldn't voting become moot?
If you are just talking about there always be a minority governing party.... that isn't so hot. Minority governments don't tend to get all that much done.

Pap

I'm totally against any party system (please expain this alternative)

brianlux said: Has there been a society bold enough to attempt something like that?

1) Christiania

2) Marinaleda

3) Iceland

4) Uruguay

5) Summerhill

6) Slab City

Native American tribes and indigenous populations all over the globe are led in a more or less same way. Going back in history, I'm sure there are many more examples of democratically governed communities (of course including their flaws).

PJ_Soul

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

Meltdown99 said:

cincybearcat said:

Meltdown99 said:

cincybearcat said:

I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.

We have 4 parties federally ... only 2 parties run the country into the ground ... 

Can you name an elected official from a party other than the Dems and Repub at the federal level?

In the US ... probably not.  I'm sure there are independents somewhere.  In Canada if the government has a majority they do whatever they want.  In our system we elect our dictators. 

Please people, don't base your understanding of how Canadian politics work on what Meltdown says. I'm not sure anyone in the AMT has ever been as biased and willing to spew silly false facts on this board.

Meltdown99

Other (please explain)

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

cincybearcat said:

Meltdown99 said:

cincybearcat said:

I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.

We have 4 parties federally ... only 2 parties run the country into the ground ... 

Can you name an elected official from a party other than the Dems and Repub at the federal level?

In the US ... probably not.  I'm sure there are independents somewhere.  In Canada if the government has a majority they do whatever they want.  In our system we elect our dictators. 

Please people, don't base your understanding of how Canadian politics work on what Meltdown says. I'm not sure anyone in the AMT has ever been as biased and willing to spew silly false facts on this board.

Yes base everything on what you say.  You have to be a Millennial.  Now go talk about other people in a post and leave me the fuck alone.  If you can not disagree directl , then don't fuck in mention...

Yesterday you made sarcastic smily face about mu divorce.  You are a real piece of fucking work.  

PJ_Soul

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

cincybearcat said:

Meltdown99 said:

cincybearcat said:

I made my choice because I hate both of the current parties but and feel that more competition and split govt would eventually end in more compromise (after a tough transition period). 

I do like the idea of parties with ties in some aspects as it would be too hard to govern with no one agreeing on a platform.

We have 4 parties federally ... only 2 parties run the country into the ground ... 

Can you name an elected official from a party other than the Dems and Repub at the federal level?

In the US ... probably not.  I'm sure there are independents somewhere.  In Canada if the government has a majority they do whatever they want.  In our system we elect our dictators. 

Please people, don't base your understanding of how Canadian politics work on what Meltdown says. I'm not sure anyone in the AMT has ever been as biased and willing to spew silly false facts on this board.

Yes base everything on what you say.  You have to be a Millennial.  Now go talk about other people in a post and leave me the fuck alone.  If you can not disagree directl , then don't fuck in mention...

Yesterday you made sarcastic smily face about mu divorce.  You are a real piece of fucking work.  

You get what you give. Stop spewing bullshit and I'll lay off.
(and no, I'm not a millennial - I don't know what that comment was supposed to mean, but I assume it insults Millennials. What have you got against Millennials?).
But with the comment about your divorce... Sorry that bothered you. My intent was genuine friendliness. Sometimes bad situations need a little humour. I've been through a heinous break up too; it's hard, but there is always room for jokes IMO. Obviously you disagree.

brianlux

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Ah!  We have some votes.  But so far, no comments.

I went with "I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits".  I don't think that has a chance of being put into practice, but why not put it out there?  I think it would be great.  Don't give us your tired party line rhetoric, tell us what you are going to do to help lead and make your world or country or state or province or city or town a better place.  I'm all for this idea.

It simply wouldn't work, so I'm simply not sure I see any point in putting it out there. I think that politics kind of require actual groups of people who all operate with a shared understanding of what their platform is so that they can all work together towards common goals. Otherwise it would likely just be chaos for each candidate and their cohorts. It would also be chaos within parliament or whatever government system you had in mind. How would a zero party system operate specifically?? Just a bunch of individuals all voicing their individual opinions and ideas? I would imagine that debates and votes about any bill would last forever if they did that. Government would essentially grind to a halt.

Yeah, it probably wouldn't work but I'd be willing to give it a try.  We're already in the midst of massive chaos.

PP193448

Can we form a common sense party and get rid of the extreme left and right

brianlux

I would like to see every candidate run strictly on his or her own merits.

PP193448 said:

Can we form a common sense party and get rid of the extreme left and right

Sounds great but would everyone agree as to what is common sense?  Don't get me wrong- I would hope so- but common sense seems like a fairly scarce thing these days. 

cincybearcat

I'm against the strictly two-party system and would like to see a balanced four or more-party system.

brianlux said:

PP193448 said:

Can we form a common sense party and get rid of the extreme left and right

Sounds great but would everyone agree as to what is common sense?  Don't get me wrong- I would hope so- but common sense seems like a fairly scarce thing these days. 

Where does the common sense party stand on guns, taxes, abortion, immigration?